Gerard Batten MEP

EU Referendum
Frequently Asked Questions
Issue No. 2b
25th March 2016
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

Would leaving the European Union ('EU') endanger jobs and trade, and
could the EU put up trade barriers against the UK?
What about the EU's Common External Tariffs?
Would leaving the EU exclude Britain from the Single Market?
What about international trade deals that the EU has negotiated with the rest
of the world - would we be excluded?
Isn't about 50% of our trade with the EU?
Is it true that 3 million jobs depend on trade with the EU?
If the UK leaves the EU, what would happen to UK citizens living in
Europe? Could they be deported?
If I own property in an EU member state, will it be safe?
If the UK leaves the EU, would I lose free access to member states' services
when I travel to Europe?
Hasn't the EU helped to keep the peace in Europe?
Are we not stronger on the world stage as part of the EU, and would we not
lose influence outside it?
Would Britain be 'isolated' outside the EU?
Should we remain in the EU in order to influence its decisions?
Why do more countries, for example Turkey, want to join the EU?
If we left, would we lose millions in EU grants?
How much does EU membership cost?
How many of our laws are made by the EU?
Other sources, like Nick Clegg MP, say that a much smaller number of our
laws comes from the EU. What is the truth?
Haven't measures such as introducing the European Arrest Warrant made us
safer from criminals and terrorists?
I have heard that the courts can prevent extradition if the accused person's
human rights are at risk. Is this true?
Don't we need to be in the EU to help protect us from organised crime and
terrorism?

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.

Why does President Obama want Britain to stay in the EU?

Why are big businesses calling for Britain to remain in the EU?
Haven't some big businesses threatened to leave the UK if we leave the EU?
Haven't senior members of the British armed forces said we are safer in the
EU?
Some say that if we leave the EU, we would be like Norway and
Switzerland, who have to obey most EU laws, pay a contribution to the EU
budget, and have open borders. Is this true?
If we left, would we still have to comply with EU rules in order to trade
with member states?
Outside the EU, would we lose our Human Rights?
Hasn't David Cameron 'renegotiated our membership of the EU' to deal with
all these problems?
Aren't both the Conservative and Labour parties in favour of EU
membership?
Has any other country ever left the EU?
How can we leave the EU? What is Article 50?
What happens if the British people vote to remain in the EU?
But it's all so complicated. I cannot make up my mind. How can I decide
which way to vote?

Introduction
Here is a list of the most frequently asked questions about the EU Referendum,
and what would happen when Britain leaves the EU. Every effort has been made
to make the answers as accurate and as factually correct as possible.
During the course of the Referendum campaign, further questions will no doubt
arise and updated versions of this document will be published. If the reader can
think of any questions that have not been included here, please email them to
Gerard Batten MEP:
gerard.batten@btinternet.com

FAQ
1. Would leaving the European Union ('EU') endanger jobs and trade,
and could the EU put up trade barriers against the UK?
When we leave the EU, it cannot put up arbitrary trade barriers against the UK,
since to do so would be in breach of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules
which govern world trade. All EU countries have agreed to follow them. And
even if they could do so in breach of WTO rules, why would they want to? We
have a massive trade deficit with the EU - they sell us far more than we sell them.
Britain currently exports goods and services to the EU to the value of 228.9
billion, whereas their exports to us amount to 290.6 billion: therefore we have a
trade deficit with the EU of 61.7 billion. Germany, Spain, France, Italy, etc. will
still want to sell us their cars, wine, holidays, etc. Trade will continue as normal. 1
Britain's is the fifth largest economy in the world. We are a world-class trading
nation; while we have a trade deficit with the EU, we have a trade surplus with the
rest of the world. Our trading success stems from hundreds of years of experience,
from English being the international language of business and science and from
the trust that foreign companies put in the English legal system and contract law.

2. What about the EU's Common External Tariffs?

The EU was formed as a Customs Union, not a Free Trade Area; against non-EU
countries, it erected certain trade barriers known as the Common External
Tariffs. However, the World Trade Organisation has been negotiating down trade
barriers internationally for many years, and as a result these are now generally
low. The pro-EU organisation British Influence states that UK exporters would
still have to pay 15% on average for food and 10% on cars to trade with the EU
2
, but this is mere scaremongering. Since the EU sells far more to Britain than we
sell to it, it would not be in its interests to impose these tariffs even if it could,
since we could impose similar tariffs on the goods it sells us.
The Eurosceptic organisation Business for Britain issued a report stating that if
the Common External Tariffs were levied on British exports, they would be at an
average rate of only 4.3%. Business for Britain calculates that the total cost to
business would be lower than the current UK net contribution to the EU budget
(which contribution is, of course, ever-rising). When we are outside the EU, it
would be cheaper for the British government to pay exporters' tariffs for them
rather than paying into the EU budget as it does now. Even so, it would not be in
the EU's interests to impose the Common External Tariffs on UK exports since, if
we did the same thing, the damage to their trade would be more than to ours.

3. Would leaving the EU exclude Britain from the Single Market?

The EU and the Single Market are not the same thing. Norway, Iceland and
Liechtenstein are members of the Single Market but not the EU. The EU has 28
members, the Single Market has 31. We do not need to be in either the EU or
the Single Market in order to trade with member states. Many countries trade
with the EU without finding it necessary to join the EU or the Single Market - for
example China, India, Japan, the USA, etc. World Trade Organisation rules
prevent the erecting of arbitrary or unilateral trade barriers. Outside the EU,
Britain could negotiate a trade deal with the EU from a position of strength.

4. What about international trade deals that the EU has negotiated

with the rest of the world - would we be excluded?
Britain's is the fifth largest economy in the world. We are a major trading nation.
Outside the EU, those countries who have signed trade deals with the EU would
certainly want to continue mutually beneficial trading arrangements with the UK.
They would have a great incentive to quickly agree to a continuation of trade on
the same, or very similar, terms. When Britain regains its seat on the WTO and
control of its own international trade policy, we could also no doubt negotiate
better trade deals for ourselves as we did for hundreds of years before we joined
the EU.

5. Isn't about 50% of our trade with the EU?

No. This figure is highly exaggerated since it refers only to the proportion of
international trade and so excludes all domestic trade, which is much higher.
But even considering only international trade, according to the Government's Pink
Book (2014) 3, 44.4% of our total exports in goods and services were to EU
countries. That figure is reduced when we take into account the so-called
'Rotterdam effect'. Exports first landing in Rotterdam are counted as exports to
Europe, even when they are destined to pass on to other countries, such as China,
which are outside the EU. Even a conservative estimate of the Rotterdam effect
reduces the total figure to about 42.8%. So it is fair to say that under 43% of our
international trade is with the EU.
Figures published by the Office for National Statistics show that only 15.6% of
UK businesses are connected with exporting or importing. Of these, no more than
5% of companies trade with the EU 4. While approximately 20% of our economy
is concerned with international trade, approximately 80% of the economy is
purely domestic (i.e., within the UK itself). Of the 20%, only approximately half
of the exports go to EU countries - and yet 100% of our businesses have to
comply with EU laws and regulations.

Britain's trade with the EU has been declining over the last twenty-five years. In
1999, 54.7% of our international trade was with the EU. By 2014, that had
reduced to about 42.8%. As already shown, while this trade is important to
Britain, it would not be endangered when we leave the EU since, as already
demonstrated, the EU cannot put up arbitrary trade barriers against the UK.

6. Is it true that 3 million jobs depend on trade with the EU?

This old chestnut continues to raise its head despite having been discredited long
ago. The figure arose from a study by the National Institute of Economic &
Social Affairs in 1999. The report calculated that 'three million jobs' are
associated with trade with the EU.
This report has been repeatedly misrepresented by various people, including
former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg MP, who said that three million jobs
are at risk if we left the EU. The Institute's Director, Martin Weale, has
repudiated the claim describing the misuse of the report for propaganda purposes
as pure Goebbels 5. These jobs depend on the continuation of trade - not on
continued EU membership.
Using similar assumptions that arrived at the figure of three million jobs in the
UK being associated with EU trade, we can arrive at a figure of 5 to 6.5 million
jobs in the EU being associated with trade with the UK 6. Millions of jobs
elsewhere also depend upon trade with Europe, for example in China, India and
Japan, but those countries do not find it necessary to join the EU in order to trade
with Europe.

7. If the UK leaves the EU, what would happen to UK citizens living in

Europe? Could they be deported?
About 1.3 million British citizens live in EU countries, while about 3 million EU
nationals live in the UK 7. The top ten locations for Britons living on the continent
are 8 :
Spain
319,144
Ireland
249,392
France
171,346
Germany
99,909
Italy
65,975
Netherlands 47,297
Cyprus
38,844
Poland
35,829
Belgium
24,915
Sweden
20,839

Most British people living in Europe are either engaged in skilled work, own
property or are retirees living on their pensions. People who are established, and
living legally, in a country are certainly not going to be expelled. One reason for
this is that many retired British people live in European countries (for example,
the 18,067 living in Greece) that are either poor or suffering from the Eurozone's
austerity policies; the income they provide is highly valued. People with an
established legal residency are not going to be expelled. This prospect is just
another example of the scaremongering by the Remain side.

8. If I own property in an EU member state, will it be safe?

When Britain leaves the EU, the EU's member states will still have to respect the
property rights of individuals living there. This is enshrined in the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on
Human Rights. The governments of countries cannot take some kind of revenge
on British property owners out of pique at a British decision to exit the EU.
Furthermore, there are millions of Europeans who own property in the UK.

9. If the UK leaves the EU, would I lose free access to member states'
services when I travel to Europe?
Britain has reciprocal health benefits with those European countries that have
comparable national health services, e.g., Germany, France, Holland, etc. There is
no reason why such reciprocal arrangements could not be continued on a bilateral
basis when we leave the EU. Many other European countries simply do not have a
public health service comparable to ours; to use their health services, British
citizens have either to pay or to take out private health insurance.
The current system does not work in Britain's favour, anyway. Figures recently
published by the Department of Health show that while Britain paid European
countries more than 674 million for treating British citizens abroad, we received
only 50 million back in payments for European citizens treated here. For
example: France received 150 million but paid Britain only 6.7 million; Spain
received 223 million but paid Britain only 3.4 million; Germany received
25.9 million but paid Britain only 2.2 million. Labour MP John Mann said,
Sorting this scandal out would transform the financial situation of the NHS 9.

10. Hasn't the EU helped to keep the peace in Europe?

This is pure mythology. Over 1945-1949, peace was kept in Europe by the British
and US armies stationed in Germany; from 1949 onwards, by NATO and the
continued presence of predominantly US and British troops to counter the threat
from the Soviet bloc. France left NATO in 1959 and did not fully re-join until

2009. The disintegration of the old Soviet Union in 1991 removed the main
military threat to Europe, but new risks have arisen. These can best be countered
by NATO and co-operation between democratic nation states, not by European
political and economic integration.
Democratic nations tend to settle their differences by diplomacy, not war. The
biggest threat to peace in Europe is posed by the creation of an undemocratic,
centralised 'United States of Europe' and the removal of powers of democratic
accountability and control from its citizens. The EU intends to create its own
armed forces by merging those of its member states, all in order to enforce its
Common Foreign and Security Policy. The safest future for Europe lies in
democratic nation states co-operating with each other and in an alliance, such as
NATO, of independent states set up to counter external threats. Abdicating control
of our foreign, security and defence policy to the EU will, as a minimum, have
unpredictable results, and potentially will be a recipe for disaster.

11. Are we not stronger on the world stage as part of the EU, and would
we not lose influence outside it?
Actually, the opposite is true. The more centralised the EU becomes, the more
power we surrender to it and the less influential we become in the world. Britain
still has a seat on the UN Security Council and is a member of over 100
international organisations. However, we lost our independent seat on the World
Trade Organisation in 1973 when we surrendered it to the EU. The EU's
ambition is to have a seat in its own right on the UN Security Council, taking over
those of Britain and France. Being a part of the EU makes Britain less influential,
not more so.

12. Would Britain be 'isolated' outside the EU?

Are countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, China, South Korea,
Taiwan, Singapore, New Zealand, Brazil, Mexico - and all the other countries in
the world which are not members of the EU - 'isolated'? There are almost 200
sovereign countries in the world, of which only 28 are members of the EU. Are all
the others 'isolated'? No. But do they make their own laws, and trade, and prosper
outside the EU? Obviously, they do.

13. Should we remain in the EU in order to influence its decisions?

If you think so, do consider these facts. In 1973, 2 of the 13 (15.4%) EU
Commissioners were British; this has fallen to 1 out of 28 (merely 3.6%, a worse
than four-fold reduction).

In 1979, 81 out of 410 (19.8%) Members of the European Parliament represented

Britain. Now we have 73 MEPs out of 751 (9.7%). Most decisions in the
Parliament are made by a simple majority vote. Even if all the UK MEPs of all
parties were to agree (which never happens), we can easily be outvoted: British
MEPs cannot ultimately protect Britain's interests.
In 1973 we had 17% of the vote in the European Council (comprising Heads of
Governments); this has now fallen to 8.2% (29 out of 352 votes). Each Member
State is allocated votes according to the size of its population. Most areas of
domestic policy are now under the control of the EU and are decided in the
Council by a Qualified Majority Vote ('QMV'). Again, when trying to protect
our national interest, we are outvoted.
The Lisbon Treaty introduced a revised system of QMV. A qualified majority is
reached if at least 55% of member states vote in favour (in practice, 16 or more
out of 28) and the proposal is supported by member states representing 65% of
the total EU population. This so-called 'double majority' is obligatory as from 1st
April 2017. A 'blocking majority' must include four Council members
representing more than 35% of the EU's population. Under this system, because
we are outvoted, we are repeatedly forced to accept laws we don't want.
If you still think Britain has the ability to influence decisions or to protect our own
interests then consider this fact: since 1996, when records began, Britain has
objected to 55 new laws in the Council of Ministers - and we have been
defeated all 55 times. All the offending measures have become law 10. How can
that possibly be considered 'being stronger in Europe' or 'defending our
national interests'?

14. Why do more countries, for example Turkey, want to join the EU?
The six countries that set up the European Economic Community ('EEC') in
1957 were Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and
Belgium. These were countries that had been devastated by the Second World
War. The driving force behind the creation of the EEC was the need for an
economic and political pact between Germany and France, historically the main
instigators of European wars.
Since then 22 more countries have joined, many for less idealistic reasons. In any
given year, typically only three or four countries are net contributors to the EU
budget. Germany is always the top contributor, with the UK usually in second or
third place. Aside from the top three or four contributors to the EU budget, most
countries take far more out than they put in.
To illustrate the point, 2004 saw the accession of ten smaller, mostly poor, Eastern
European countries to the EU. They joined for the financial and other benefits
they could obtain. The same is true of those countries waiting to join such as

Macedonia, Turkey, Albania, Montenegro, Serbia & Herzegovina, Kosovo,

Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova.
The countries lining up to join are certainly not doing so in the hope of making
donations to the massive EU budget. They want cash handouts, and to be able to
export their excess populations and unemployed to Europe. Turkey, for instance,
is not even in Europe (97.0% of its land mass is in Asia). It has a population of 77
million, and if it joins it will be the second most populous, and the poorest,
country in the EU. You can work the rest out for yourself.

15. If we left, would we lose millions in EU grants?

Firstly, there is no such thing as 'EU money'. There is only taxpayers' money, and
the UK is always a net contributor to the EU budget - every single year (except for
one), we've paid in far more than we got out. As stated before, Germany always
pays the most, with Britain usually in the top three or four. The one and only year
that we got more out than we paid in was 1975. 'Coincidentally', 1975 was the last
time we had a Referendum on membership...
The EU's own figures 11 show that out of the 37 British regions (as classified
under the EU's system for 'Regional Aid'), 35 are net contributors to the fund.
Only two regions, West Wales and Cornwall, are net beneficiaries. In total, the
UK gets back 1 for every 3.55 we pay in. Over the budgetary period 20072013, the UK paid in about 29.5 billion, but received only 8.7 billion in return.
Many of Britain's poorest and most deprived regions are subsidising the regions of
other EU member states.
Neither is this money well spent: between 2007 and 2013, the European
Regional Development Fund's payments to Wales totalled 2 billion, yet the
effect on unemployment in Wales was insignificant. We would be better off not
giving the money to the EU and instead deciding how to spend British tax-payers'
money to best effect ourselves, in our own country.

16. How much does EU membership cost?

A simple question which, unfortunately, has a complex answer: even the British
government doesn't quite seem to know exactly how much it hands over to the EU
each year. The Government's current forecast for payments to the EU Budget for
2016-2017 is:
19.228 billion gross contribution to the budget
4.444 billion is held back as the British Rebate
4.606 billion is spent in the UK by the EU
This gives an estimated net contribution of 10.178 billion.

10

However, bear in mind that our gross contribution is rising, the rebate is declining
(thanks to Tony Blair's 'renegotiations' of 2006), and the EU spends 4.6 billion of
our own money in our own country on projects they, rather than we, deem fit. A
British government should be able to make better decisions than the EU on how to
spend taxpayers' money in Britain.
The indirect costs on the economy are much higher. These include the Common
Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy and over-regulation on
business, to name just three. Professor Tim Congdon has calculated that the
direct and indirect costs on our economy for 2015 constitute 12% of GDP (Gross
Domestic Product) or 190 billion per annum. 12

17. How many of our laws are made by the EU?

Most areas of domestic policy are now under the control of the EU. Its legislation
takes two main forms: Directives and Regulations. Directives must be transposed
into UK Acts of Parliament. The UK Parliament has no choice in the matter, even
if, in some instances, it may tinker with the details. And Regulations
automatically become law, even without our Parliament debating them.
The amount of law coming from the EU varies from year to year. In 2006, the
German Parliament, under former President Roman Hertzog, carried out a study
that put the proportion of new laws originating from the EU at 84%. Gordon
Brown, in a speech to the Confederation of British Industry in 2005 while he was
Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted that European regulations - of course account for 50% of significant new rules for business. In the European
Parliament, EU Commissioner Viviane Reding admitted that 70% of British
laws are made in the EU. So a reasonable estimate is that, in any given year, the
proportion of our law that comes from the EU is somewhere between 50% and
80%.
The rate of legislation passing through the European Parliament has somewhat
slowed down over the last eighteen months, and it is believed that a large amount
of legislation is being deliberately held back by the Commission until the British
Referendum is over. If we vote to remain in the EU, the legislative floodgates will
once again open.

18. Other sources, like Nick Clegg MP, say that a much smaller number
of our laws comes from the EU. What is the truth?
You may hear quoted figures of only 9%, or perhaps only 13%, as representing
the percentage of our laws coming from the EU. That is a misrepresentation of the
contents of a House of Commons Briefing Paper that stated about 13.2% of our
laws come from the EU. But the paper warns that the figure does not take into

11

account the large number of EU Regulations that automatically pass into UK law.
The 13.2% figure refers solely to Acts of Parliament required to transpose EU
Directives into law. Taking Regulations into account, the recalculated figure is
more like 65%. That is within the range described under answer 17., which was
between 50% and 80% in any given year, varying with the EU's legislative
output.

19. Haven't measures such as introducing the European Arrest

Warrant made us safer from criminals and terrorists?
The simple answer is that they have not. The European Arrest Warrant is just one
part of an EU system of criminal justice being created which supersedes the
English legal system. Britain was one of the first countries (it was back in 1870)
to pass an Extradition Act. That Act required prima facie evidence to be presented
to the English extradition court for it to satisfy itself that there was sufficient
evidence against the accused person to justify surrendering him or her to a foreign
judicial system.
The 1870 Act worked well until the then Conservative Government replaced it
with the Extradition Act of 1989, the small print of which allowed the European
Convention on Extradition to be ratified in 1990. This removed the requirement
for prima facie evidence to be presented to the English extradition court.
The Extradition Act 2003 removed further safeguards for the accused person.
Under the Act, 'extradition' became 'judicial surrender'. It allowed a British citizen
to be removed to any other EU member state purely on the strength of a form
completed by the relevant foreign authority; this can be purely on 'suspicion'. No
prima facie evidence is presented to the English court, and indeed they have no
power to prevent 'judicial surrender'. This goes entirely against the centuries-old
English legal protection enshrined in Habeas Corpus, which prevented
imprisonment without evidence and without a charge being formally laid for a
specific offence under English law.
This is because of the EU doctrine of 'mutual recognition' which says all EU
legal, judicial and penal systems are of equal standing - which is palpably not the
case. British citizens can be sent abroad purely at the request of a foreign
examining magistrate and locked up for months or even years while investigations
take place. In contrast, British Police cannot request extradition of a suspect to the
UK, unless and until they have fully investigated and amassed sufficient evidence
for a charge to be laid.
This highlights the fundamental difference between the continental and the
English legal systems: under continental ones, people may be and are imprisoned
for long periods while accusations are investigated, whereas under the English
system people may only be imprisoned (on remand) after a specific criminal

12

offence has been fully investigated and charges laid. The English legal system
evolved over 800 years as much to protect the innocent as to convict the guilty.
Those principles are being sacrificed in favour of an EU system of criminal law.

20. I have heard that the courts can prevent extradition if the accused
person's human rights are at risk. Is this true?
That may be the case in theory, but in practice it does not work. All EU member
states have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. The English
court will take the view that, because EU member states have signed the
Convention, under the doctrine of 'mutual recognition' they cannot then be
deemed to be in breach of it - even if all the known facts contradict this.
For example, it is well-known that countries such as Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary,
Romania and others, are frequently in breach of the Convention, because of their
institutionalised corruption or because of the conditions in their prisons;
nevertheless and despite this, suspects will be 'judicially surrendered' to them. The
author has been present in the English Court of Appeal when such a judgement
has been made.

21. Don't we need to be in the EU to help protect us from organised

crime and terrorism?
The EU's open borders policy has put us more, not less, at risk from criminals and
terrorists. The open borders policy has meant that Europe's criminals have
migrated to where they think they can most lucratively operate, and that means
countries like Britain. The EU's Freedom of Movement Directive (Directive
2004/38, Article 27(2)) says that 'previous criminal convictions are not enough
to justify exclusion'. So even if we know someone to be a convicted criminal, we
have no power to prevent his or her entry to our country. We have seen convicted
murderers, rapists and paedophiles come from Europe to the UK and then commit
more appalling crimes over here.
Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe revealed recently that 29%
of the Met Police's 250,000 arrests in a year were of foreign nationals (admittedly,
not all being EU citizens), but of these, only 13% resulted in a charge or
summons 13. The excuse for not being able to bring them to justice was because it
was not possible to check their DNA, fingerprints or previous convictions, and so
they were released.
Open borders also aid terrorists. We have seen terrorist attacks in a number of
European capitals made by terrorists who can easily cross borders under the EU's
Schengen open borders system. Britain is not in Schengen, but any EU citizen has
the right to come to Britain if he or she so wishes. Europe has plenty of its own

13

home-grown terrorists who have free access to the UK, but we also saw how, in
the Paris attacks of November 2015, at least one of the murderous terrorists was
operating on a forged passport. Whenever these terrorist attacks occur, the EU
uses the act as an excuse to call for yet more power over police and judicial
matters, and to create or enlarge the EU's own security and intelligence services.
Writing in the magazine Prospect, MI6's former head (1999-2004), Sir Richard
Dearlove, made it clear that Britain would be safer outside of the EU. He stated
that leaving the EU would make it easier to deport terrorists and control our
borders. He added that Europe would not turn its back on Britain or our
intelligence services, because Britain is Europe's leader in intelligence and
security matters and gives much more than it gets in return. 14
When the UK is out of the EU, the organised crime and terrorist threat would not
go away. But then we would be free to control our own borders, and we could
continue, as we have always done, to share our intelligence with our allies. But
allowing our intelligence services to be merged with an EU intelligence service
would be a tremendous mistake.

22. Why does President Obama want Britain to stay in the EU?
Back in the 1970s, Henry Kissinger is reported to have said, When I want to
speak to Europe, whom should I call? The story may be apocryphal but it
highlights the fact that US foreign policy wants to deal with one central authority
in Europe, rather than have the inconvenience of dealing with individual,
independent nation states.
After the Second World War, the USA funded, to the tune of many millions of
dollars, the European Movement, which covertly worked towards creating a
United States of Europe. The release of declassified documents in 2000 showed
that that the American Committee for a United Europe was, in fact, a front
organisation for the CIA. The USA wanted a bulwark against the Soviet threat
and, as stated above, the convenience of dealing with one central political power
in Europe. There is evidence that the CIA also clandestinely funded the Remain
side in the 1975 British Referendum 15.
America is primarily concerned with its own perceived national interests, and not
Britain's. We know that the USA has interfered in the domestic politics of many
nations around the world - so why would they not interfere with ours? We should
also recall that President Obama has called for Turkey to become a member of the
EU, which would invite another 77 million potential migrants to come to Britain,
should they so wish. That is evidently not in the British national interest.

14

23. Why are big businesses calling for Britain to remain in the EU?
Some big business are, some aren't. In February 2016, representatives of 36
FTSE100 companies signed a letter to The Times calling for Britain to remain in
the EU. But that means the other 64 FTSE100 companies did not sign it.
About 200 companies have committed to the Remain campaign - but that is a
miniscule proportion of the 5.4 million companies registered in the UK.
Some big businesses like the EU because they want to deal with one central
regulatory authority. They can lobby for the kind of regulation they want and
which they can comply with, but which their smaller competitors cannot. They
also like the endless waves of cheap migrant labour that the EU's open borders
bring.
Other representatives of big businesses are equally vocal about wanting Britain to
leave the EU - for example, Peter Hargreaves, co-founder of FTSE 100 company
Hargreaves Lansdown. Writing in the Daily Mail on 25th February 2016 Mr.
Hargreaves said, [EU] red tape and regulations have stifled enterprise in the UK,
not helped. He added that Britain should be forging trading links with nations
that have fast growth rates and dynamic economies. While we are in the EU we
must wait on unmotivated, overpaid Eurocrats. He concluded by hoping that the
electorate would decide to leave this disastrous and stifling union 16.
Small and Medium Sized Businesses (SMEs) are even less enthusiastic about
the EU. 200 bosses of SMEs signed a letter calling for Britain to leave the EU
because of a constant diet of unnecessary regulations from Brussels that raise
costs, cut profits and force up prices. The letter concluded that, We believe that
our economy can do better without being held back by the EU, thus we should
vote to leave. The establishment is desperate to stifle any dissent - in March, the
British Chamber of Commerce's Director General John Longworth was
forced to resign for stating his personal opinion that we should leave. No one has
so far been forced out of a job for saying we should stay in.

24. Haven't some big businesses threatened to leave the UK if we leave

the EU?
As stated in answer 23., in February 2016, 36 of Britain's top companies signed a
letter to The Times arguing for Britain to stay in the EU. But almost two-thirds of
the 100 top companies did not sign. Those that declined to sign included
Barclays, Sainsbury's and Tesco.
Other huge companies, such as Toyota, General Motors, BMW, Volkswagen,
Airbus, Jaguar, Land Rover, Honda and Ford have all stated their ongoing
commitment to UK manufacturing, whatever the result of the Referendum. John
Mills, the millionaire Labour donor and founder of John Mills Ltd (JML),

15

supports Brexit, as do Joe Foster and John Caudwell, the founders of Reebok
and Phones 4U respectively.
On 17th February 2016, 80 business leaders, including Pasha Khandaker,
President of the UK Bangladesh Caterers Association, Moni Varma, owner of
rice suppliers Veetee, and Tariq Usmani, CEO of Henley Homes, wrote to the
Prime Minister saying that Britain's membership of the EUwas damaging trade
with the rest of the world. They continued, As long as Britain's trade policy is
controlled by the EU, we cannot sign bilateral free trade agreements with
Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Australia, New Zealand, or for that matter any other
non-EU state. They added, Vested interests on the continent sustain a relatively
protectionist policy. We apply the EU's common external tariff to exports to
Commonwealth countries hurting customers and consumers here.
Aircraft maker Boeing chose Britain for its new European headquarters in March
2016. Sir Michael Arthur, President of Boeing UK and Ireland, stated that
The prosperous partnership between our country and our company goes from
strength to strength. Boeing employs 2,000 staff in the UK and has invested 1.8
billion here.
Interestingly, in 2013 Jim O'Neill, the former Chairman of Goldman Sachs' asset
management business said, We should not be scared of leaving it [the EU] and
exploring a world without it. The opportunities that arise from a dramatically
changing world are huge and I don't think that a lot people in our area, never
mind in Brussels, are that interested or understand it.

25. Haven't senior members of the British armed forces said we are
safer in the EU?
A letter orchestrated by 10 Downing Street in February 2016 was signed by a
number of senior and former members of the armed forces: however, this
manoeuvre spectacularly backfired after it turned out that one of the claimed
signatories had not signed at all. General Sir Michael Rose had not only not
given his permission to be included, but had instead said that sovereignty and
security are intrinsically linked and in the recent years we've seen the EU erode
our sovereignty 17. No. 10 was forced to issue a humiliating apology to Sir
Michael.
Other respected military figures have come out in favour of leaving the EU,
including Colonel Richard Kemp, former Army Commander in Afghanistan,
who wrote an article in the Sunday Express of 28th February 2016 stating that
NATO is our main military alliance, not the EU ... By leaving the EU we will
gain far greater control of our borders and better confront these challenges that
have the potential to undermine the very fabric of our society.

16

26. Some say that if we leave the EU, we would be like Norway and
Switzerland, who have to obey most EU laws, pay a contribution to the
EU budget, and have open borders. Is this true?
No. When Britain leaves the EU, it will not be obliged to follow either the socalled 'Norwegian' or 'Swiss' models. The Norwegians chose to be members of the
European Economic Area. Switzerland had agreed over 100 bilateral treaties
with the EU, which has meant it has adopted most EU laws without being a
member of the EEA or EU.
No genuine advocate of Brexit would suggest this outcome is desirable. Instead,
we should adopt the 'Canadian', 'Japanese' or 'Singaporean' models: independent
nation states that trade and co-operate without being members of the EU. In
reality, we want a British Model which would mean we do not have to obey EU
laws, pay them any money or have open borders. We would be in a very strong
position to negotiate our own trade deal with the EU - and indeed trade deals with
the rest of the world. We would not have to join the EEA - and nor should we.
It is noteworthy that the Swiss Parliament recently voted to withdraw its 24 yearold application to join the EU, because the costs of EU membership are too high.
In 2006 the Swiss Federal Government carried out a study that calculated that full
membership of the EU would cost up to six times the cost of their existing
bilateral arrangements with the EU.

27. If we left, would we still have to comply with EU rules in order to

trade with member states?
Any country that exports goods or services to another country has to comply with
that country's related rules. For example, when we export goods or services to the
USA, we have to comply with the USA's own rules, specifications and laws. That
is true of any country wishing to trade with another. As has been said earlier, the
rules governing trade are agreed under the auspices of the World Trade
Organisation. The WTO strives to bring trade barriers down internationally.

28. Outside the EU, would we lose our Human Rights?

After the atrocities committed on the continent during the Second World War, the
European Convention on Human Rights was proposed by Winston Churchill.
It was modelled on the protections enshrined for centuries under English
Common Law. So, you can see we had perfectly good human rights under our
own laws before we joined the EU - and we will after we leave.
Under Tony Blair's Labour Government, the Convention was incorporated into
UK law by means of the Human Rights Act (1998). This has subsequently led to
all kinds of abuses and to it being described as a charter for criminals and

17

terrorists. This is because of numerous decisions by the European Court of Justice.

British Courts have found themselves powerless to deport foreign terrorists,
murderers, rapists and paedophiles, all because the European Court of Human
Rights ('ECHR') has decided that it might infringe their 'human rights' to do so.
In fact, leaving the EU would not make much practical difference to our situation
regarding either the Convention or the ECHR. However, if a British Parliament
decided to repeal the Human Rights Act, and remove our country from the
jurisdiction of the ECHR, then we could return power to Parliament, and legal
jurisdiction to our own Supreme Court - but that is a separate issue.

29. Hasn't David Cameron 'renegotiated our membership of the EU' to

deal with all these problems?
Mr. Cameron's 'deal' is, in fact, 'no deal' at all. There is not sufficient space here to
address each one of his 'reforms', but in summary, neither do they amount to very
much, nor do they return or repatriate any significant powers to the UK
Parliament (despite Mr. Cameron's many promises to do so).
The 'reforms' will require many changes to the EU Treaty (which will necessitate
the unanimous consent of 27 other member states), and many amendments to
existing EU Directives, which first have to be voted upon by the European
Parliament and then additionally require the consent of the European Council
(comprising Heads of the 27 other member states' governments) by Qualified
Majority Voting.
Martin Schulz MEP, the President of the European Parliament, has made it
plain that how the EU Parliament votes cannot be guaranteed in advance, and that
MEPs may decide to change the substance of the reforms - or even to reject them
wholesale. Likewise, the European Council might decide to reject the changes,
including the proposed Treaty changes. We simply do not and cannot know what
will happen, because although the Referendum will be on 23rd June 2016, the
changes to the Treaty and Directives will not happen until months or years
afterwards. Mr. Cameron is trying to sell the British electorate a pig in a poke.

30. Aren't both the Conservative and Labour parties in favour of EU

membership?
Not quite. In fact, both the Conservative and Labour parties are riven with
conflicts on this issue, as they have been ever since we joined the EEC in 1973. In
the Referendum of 1975, leading politicians from each party were to be found
campaigning on both the In and the Out side. The same phenomenon may be
observed now.

18

At least 165 (about 50%) Conservative MPs have already declared themselves as
Leavers in the coming Referendum, with many more expected to follow. These
include many cabinet ministers like Iain Duncan Smith (since, resigned from the
cabinet) as well as major figures such as Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith.
Approximately two-thirds of Conservative Party members are believed to be in
favour of Brexit.
The Labour Party is similarly conflicted, although they are not discussing it as
openly. A number of Labour MPs have publicly declared in favour of Brexit:
Kate Hoey MP, Graham Stringer MP and Kelvin Hopkins MP. A major
Labour donor millionaire John Mills heads the Labour Leave campaign group.
Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn was opposed to EU membership throughout his
career, but now nominally backs the Remain campaign. While a majority of
Labour MPs are in favour of remaining, this does not reflect the feeling of a very
large number of Party members. Even Andy Burnham MP, a Europhile and
former contender for the Labour Leadership, had to admit that despite
campaigning to stay in the EU, If I was [sic] to lay money on itI would bet
that Brexit is going to win 18.
Even the usually Europhile Scottish National Party are not united on this issue.
Jim Sillars, a major figure in the SNP and a former Deputy Leader, has written an
excellent pamphlet arguing why Scotland should vote to leave the EU. Mr. Sillars
sums the issue up succinctly when he writes, Should the Parliament we directly
elect make our laws? If the answer is Yes, the coming-out of the EU is a must.
If the answer is No, then you must accept having laws imposed on your society
with which your elected government does not agree.

31. Has any other country ever left the EU?

Yes, one. Greenland left in 1985. Greenland had, along with Denmark and
Britain, joined the European Economic Community on 1st January 1973.
However, Greenland's politicians soon realized that the Common Fisheries Policy
was destroying their country's fishing industry. In their 1985 Referendum, 53% of
Greenlanders voted to leave, which they subsequently did on 1st January 1986.
The Greenland Treaty formalised their exit.
Conventional wisdom might dictate that Greenland is too small to survive on its
own, and that it ought to be grateful to stay and to depend on EU handouts. The
reality is quite different. Greenland has a workforce of only 28,000 and fish
provide 82% of its exports; but it had the courage to leave and free itself of EU
red-tape and regulations - and from surrendering its fishing grounds to the
Common Fisheries Policy. The average income in Greenland is higher than those
of Britain, Germany and France. If may be cold in Greenland, but life is sunnier
there than in the EU. 19

19

32. How can we leave the EU? What is Article 50?

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty laid out, for the first time, the means whereby a
Member State could leave the EU; however, were we to try and leave using
Article 50, we might well find that we were never able to leave. Under Article 50,
there is a two-year negotiation period which could be prolonged indefinitely by
unanimous agreement of EU member states. Even if we did manage to leave using
Article 50, we could find ourselves with a 'deal' that still required us to pay
contributions to the EU budget, having to accept a large proportion of EU laws
and with open borders to EU citizens. We simply do not know what that deal
might be in the two or more years following our giving notice.
Another great danger is that the British government could delay the whole process
beyond the next General Election in 2020. Whichever party wins that election, it
could then set aside the Referendum decision (which is, in any event, not legally
binding) if they so wish, on the basis that a general election result trumps a
Referendum (formally put, that no Parliament can bind its successors), and we
might never leave.
The only sure way for Britain to leave the EU is for our Parliament to repeal
the European Communities Act 1972. This would immediately return
supremacy of law to our own Parliament and courts, and free us from control by
the EU. Chaos would not ensue because all EU Directives, which have been
transposed into Acts of Parliament, would remain in place. These could then be
repealed when needed, leaving what laws we might need to interact with the EU
(if, indeed, the EU itself continues to exist). The difference between the Article 50
method and the straightforward repeal of the European Communities Act is that
the repeal puts the British Government and Parliament, and not the EU, in control.
A full, detailed explanation of how this strategy would work has been outlined in
a book by Gerard Batten MEP entitled The Road to Freedom 20.

33. What happens if the British people vote to remain in the EU?
Those on the vote to remain side of the argument have no positive arguments to
put for continued membership, and their tactics are based on pure scaremongering.
Should the British be frightened into voting to remain, they should not imagine
that the status quo in the EU will continue for long. The EU has clearly stated how
it will forge ahead with deeper and deeper political and economic integration.
The EU intends to implement full economic and financial governance of its
member states from Brussels. It wants to create its own armed forces to
implement its own Foreign and Security Policy. It wants to import millions more
migrants from Africa, the Middle East and beyond. To think that Mr. Camerons
feeble and ineffectual 'reforms' will protect us from any of this is delusional. The
EU has always been about creating a United States of Europe (in substance, if

20

not yet in name) and after the British Referendum, whatever the result, that project
will resume its momentum.
If the British people vote to remain in the European Union, it will be a decision
they will soon come to regret. But Parliament should always retain its sovereignty,
so a future British Government could make a unilateral decision to leave the EU.

34. But it's all so complicated. I cannot make up my mind. How can I
decide which way to vote?
You will indeed hear many arguments, facts and figures from the Remain and
Leave sides in the Referendum campaign. If you feel it is all a bit too much to
take in, then look at the question in another way. If we had never joined the
European Economic Community ('EEC' or Common Market) in 1973, would
you now choose to join the European Union ('EU') knowing what it has become?
Ask yourself this: do you want to live in a democratic, self-governing country
where the electorate can sack the government and elect a new one? Or do you
prefer to live in an undemocratic, and economically declining, 'United States of
Europe' (in effect, if not yet in name) where the real government (the European
Commission) is not elected and cannot be sacked? Looked at this way, it is a
simple choice.
Notes
1

For a full explanation, read Lord William Dartmouth MEPs The Truth About Trade Beyond the EU.
BREXIT: What would happen if the UK voted to leave? British Influence.
3
United Kingdom Balance of Payments - The Pink Book: 2014, showing inward and outward transactions,
providing a net flow of transactions between the UK and the rest of the world and how that flow is funded.
4
Business for Britain. Change or go. How Britain would gain influence and prosper outside an unreformed EU,
pages 122-123
5
Europe Doesnt Work, by Professor Tim Congdon.
6
The EU Jobs Myth, by Ryan Bourne. March 2015, Institute of Economic Affairs.
7
Daily Telegraph, eurofacts@telegraph.co.uk Asa Bennett 2nd March 2016
8
Daily Telegraph, eurofacts@telegraph.co.uk Asa Bennett 2nd March 2016
9
The Metro newspaper, 3rd March 2016
10
Business for Britain, Measuring Britains influence in the Council of Ministers, Briefing Note 3
11
European Commission, Eurostat, ECB, Open Europe calculations. The author of the report, Mats Persson, is
now an advisor to David Cameron.
12
How much does the European Union cost, 2015 Edition. Professor Tim Congdon
13
The Evening Standard, Friday 18th March 2016.
14
The Daily Mail, article by James Slack and Tamara Cohen. 23rd March 2016
15
The Hidden Hand. Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence, by Dr Richard J. Aldrich. Published by
John Murray
16
The Daily Express, Friday 4th March 2016
17
The Daily Mail, 25th February 2016.
18
The Daily Express, 15th March 2016
19
Why is Greenland so rich these days? It said goodbye to the EU, by Alex Singleton. 28th November 2010
20
The Road to Freedom by Gerard Batten MEP, with research by Pavel Stroilov. Published by Betwalda Books
Ltd. www.BretwaldaBooks.com
2

Published and promoted by Gerard Batten MEP, P.O. Box 2959, Romford RM7 1QZ